--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > I am not a siddha. What does this have to do with enlightenment?
Has to do with a conversation Lawson and I and Robin were having about MMY's statement that being able to fly is the sine qua non of enlightenment. I had assumed you were following it and would recognize the relevance. Robin is saying MMY was fibbing; if you're enlightened and you can't fly, that would be two votes for a fib on MMY's part. Who in the TMO, including MMY have demonstrated this? I am speaking of scientifically confirmed levitation, even temporary and partial (reduction of body mass, not necessarily floating). Names, places, researchers, and peer reviewed papers please. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Xeno, can you fly? > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > Welcome back Robin. I did not say anything earlier, not sure you were > > > going to stay a while. And I do not seem to have much time lately to wade > > > through voluminous text. > > > > > > I think your analysis below has some weight to it. As Susan hinted at > > > earlier, I think the state you were experiencing was a mystical state of > > > union, not enlightenment; you cannot back out of enlightenment; you can > > > back out of glimpses or more sustained experiences of its precursors. > > > Enlightenment is a realisation, it is not a sustained experience of one > > > type; it is an understanding, though not an intellectual one, and it > > > shows one that all ideas one had about it were nonsense. It is utterly > > > not metaphysical. The Zen master Dogen said, 'Do not think you will > > > necessarily be aware of your own enlightenment'. The ego resists to the > > > end its destruction, or rather its inactivation; it can hang around, like > > > a broken watch. Yours is still ticking. This is not wrong or bad. Giving > > > up control not bad either; but the 'correct' understanding is that it > > > makes no difference whatever whether you are in control or not. > > > > > > I tend to dislike religious terminology, that metaphysical murk, but I > > > found this passage which might interest you by C.S. Lewis, that atheist, > > > then Christian, then an off-again and on-again Christian: > > > > > > 'God will invade. But I wonder whether people who ask God to interfere > > > openly and directly our world quite realise what it will be like when He > > > does. When that happens, it is the end of the world. When the author > > > walks onto the stage the play is over. God is going to invade, all right: > > > but what is the good of saying your are on His side then, when you see > > > the whole natural universe melting away like a dream and something else > > > --- something it never entered your head to conceive --- comes crashing > > > in; something so beautiful to some of us and so terrible to others that > > > none of us will have any choice left?' > > > > > > The embrace of God is terrible and crushing to the ego; I believe you are > > > simply substituting another version of the ego's grasp for immortality, > > > its attempt to subvert infinity for its limited ends. The ego wants God > > > as an ally, to pump itself up; God only 'wants' to be God, because God is > > > God - I am that I am, and, all This is That. Eventually a watch will > > > stop. Eventually time will run out for you, and then there will be no > > > choice, in that peculiar sense that it does not matter, but it is not a > > > bad thing. > > > > > > Like Barry, you seem to have an interest in maintaining free will, that > > > strange concept that we are agents of our own destiny. We are, but not in > > > the sense we tend to think. In this you and Barry seem to be alike even > > > if all else about you is not. I imagine the two of you being on the same > > > boat, though one is perhaps starboard, and the other is on the port side. > > > The boat I am imagining is the Titanic; nothing like a dip in the cool > > > ocean to wake one up. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Lawson, > > > > > > > > Just one thing you should know: By definition Unity Consciousness means > > > > the individual intention for one's actions does not start with oneself. > > > > It starts with cosmic intelligence. This was very much my experience. > > > > So, unless cosmic intelligence decided to make accomplishing the flying > > > > sidhi the criterion for Unity Consciousness; that is, cosmic > > > > intelligence, in a given moment decided to make someone fly through the > > > > flying sidhi, the mere demand that one prove one's enlightenment by > > > > being able to fly, well it is absurd. Because it suggests that one's > > > > behaviour becomes subject to the control and command of another person. > > > > Each and every action of some one who is enlightened is determined b > > > > cosmic intelligence, not individual intention separate from this cosmic > > > > intelligence. So Maharishi saying that being able to fly is the > > > > determinant of whether a person is enlightened or not, is just > > > > fatuousUNLESS he meant that, a person who is in Unity Consciousness, > > > > should cosmic intelligence through that person wish for him to fly, > > > > then he had better be able to fly! > > > > > > > > When I was in Unity Consciousness there was nothing anyone could say to > > > > me which would usurp the authority of this cosmic intelligence. So the > > > > demand: Prove that you are enlightened by flying right now would be the > > > > equivalent of saying: Your actions are determined by cosmic > > > > intelligence, but now I am going to be the author of your actions: Obey > > > > me, not cosmic intelligence. Maharishi himself was the classic exemplar > > > > of all this: never once attempting to prove or demonstrate he was > > > > enlightened. And this was because he was not subject to the demands or > > > > desires or judgments of anyone else. Not even to himself: he remained > > > > cosmic to the very end I believe. > > > > > > > > Do you understand what I am saying, Lawson? That if you were > > > > enlightened you would have the distinct and unchallengeable experience > > > > that all of your actions were out of your control, and therefore any > > > > person making a demand upon you simply would be computed cosmically in > > > > terms of: what is the correct and appropriate response to what this > > > > person is asking me to do, namely prove that I am enlightened by > > > > flying? And your response would NEVER be based upon satisfying the > > > > individual subjective consciousness of that person. Now it could come > > > > about that the cosmic intelligence decided: Ah, this person who is > > > > enlightened is being asked to fly in order to prove he or she is > > > > enlightened. Let's do it, then. But that would be on the terms of the > > > > cosmic intelligence and only incidentally having anything do with the > > > > individual having made this demand. Cosmic intelligence would take it > > > > out of this context and put it inside a cosmic context. > > > > > > > > That said, I believe enlightenment to be an unnatural state of > > > > consciousness, a perfect mystical hallucination. There is an experience > > > > of unboundednessperpetualand the experience of one's actions being > > > > spontaneous and creatively involuntary, guided, controlled and executed > > > > by cosmic intelligence, But the state of enlightenment is, in an > > > > ultimate sense, unrealIt is not a state of consciousness within which > > > > one is actually seeing reality as it actually is. This is NOT what is > > > > going on. One is seeing reality through a state of consciousness that > > > > does mechanically and metaphysically represent a state of consciousness > > > > other than mere waking state consciousness as known by the person > > > > before he or she became enlightened. But more than this, it is not the > > > > intelligence which created the universe which has created this state of > > > > consciousness; nor does the intelligence which created the universe > > > > have anything to do with the actions of the enlightened personI mean > > > > in the sense of being the direct and specific cause of those actions, > > > > In this sense the "cosmic" in cosmic consciousness is not cosmic at > > > > all. It certainly is a metaphysical power, and perhaps even is being > > > > controlled by very powerful intelligences; but those intelligences > > > > would be Maharishi's Vedic gods, or personal gods, or "impulses of > > > > creative intelligence". Who have nothing to do with the creation of the > > > > universe nor the creation of Lawson, Robin, orsince she is part of > > > > this discussionJudy Stein. > > > > > > > > Even supposing there was someone who was a perfect Saintand was seen > > > > to levitate (as recorded in the lives of various Catholic Saints); in > > > > each case this levitation'flying'would never be at the behest of that > > > > person's free will; it would always be imposed upon that person 'from > > > > on high', from the intelligence of the Creator. > > > > > > > > Whatever is the nature of the intelligence which created the universe, > > > > which keeps the universe is existence, and which created you and me and > > > > keeps us in existence, that intelligence would never allow a single > > > > created being to defy the laws of gravity just at will, in order to > > > > prove the glorious truth that someone had achieved what Maharishi > > > > deemed Unity Consciousness. No one has ever been able to do something > > > > through individual will which does not originate in the universal > > > > uncreated willif, that is, the activity entails flouting some natural > > > > law, like gravity. > > > > > > > > Had being able to fly anything do with enlightenment, Maharishi would > > > > have mentioned it in the Science of Being and The Art of Living; it > > > > would be in the Gita; and he would have described how Guru Dev proved > > > > his enlightenment constantly by doing the flying sidhi. That is, > > > > levitating upon demand. The very idea is absurd. Maharishi never even > > > > thought of the flying sidhi when he became enlightened. And in all his > > > > video and audio tapes he never mentioned this idea in twenty years of > > > > bringing his teaching to the world. Maharishi wanted to link doing the > > > > sidhis with enlightenment, so me made this absurd and indefensible > > > > assertion that the test of Unity is: Can you fly? > > > > > > > > Of course in another way of understanding him, he was of course > > > > perfectly right. If cosmic intelligence wished to prove someone was > > > > enlightened, then it would levitate that person*but only on its > > > > terms*, not on the terms of the world, or Lawson. > > > > > > > > My experience of being enlightened was that everything was beautifully > > > > and sometimes terrifyingly out of one's control. Getting de-enlightened > > > > had everything do with with fighting to get control over one's own > > > > consciousness and one's own actions. > > > > > > > > If Maharishi could say this he should also have said: The test of Unity > > > > is whether you can hold back death, whether you can make yourself not > > > > subject to death, whether you can, then, acquire physical immortality. > > > > Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, he was magnificent and wondrous and magical, but > > > > he was in the end just another created human beingbut imprisoned > > > > inside a mystical hallucination. The intelligences which created his > > > > enlightenment and his glorious moment in creation, those same > > > > intelligences abandoned him in the end: Maharishi never made one human > > > > being beautiful, nor did he make any human being a Saint. But that was > > > > because in the end Maharishi was not beautiful and was not a Saint. > > > > Although for thousands of us initiators, for a ten year period, he was > > > > better than Christ. And as beautiful, and as saintly. > > > > > > > > I would say, Lawson, if someone obeyed the demand of an individual > > > > person's challenge to their enlightenment, and *they answered that > > > > person on that person's terms*: "Prove to me you in Unity by flying > > > > right now"by actually flying, then they would certainly have > > > > demonstrated some extraordinary power, but they would prove that they > > > > were not in Unity. Because a person in Unity does not behave on the > > > > basis of the desires and demands of an single individual consciousness. > > > > A person in Unity behaves according to the intentions of the > > > > intelligences which made that person enlightened. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote: > > > >>>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > >>>> [...] > > > >>>>> Why did he wait until Robin had precipitated a crisis > > > >>>>> at MIU--even telling Bevan prior to that to leave Robin > > > >>>>> alone--if he knew all along Robin wasn't in UC? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> He was having valid experiences of UC, according to all > > > >>>> accounts Why discourage Robin in his growth rather then > > > >>>> letting him draw his own conclusions by MMY's generalized > > > >>>> public statements? > > > >>> > > > >>> How would telling Robin he wasn't quite there yet have > > > >>> discouraged Robin's growth? > > > >> > > > >> MMY had ALREADY told Robin and everyone else that the TM-Sidhis would > > > >> give them a feel for whether or not they were "quite there". > > > >> OBviously, Robin didn't get the memo. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>> In 1983, he was causing big problems at MIU. Why didn't > > > >>> MMY interfere then? > > > >>> > > > >>>> Robin never went back and asked MMY to revalidate things, > > > >>>> did he? > > > >>> > > > >>> They were in personal contact at least once after Robin > > > >>> had set up his own group in Victoria (before coming to > > > >>> MIU). > > > >> > > > >> And MMY llike as not gave him the same advice he gave everyone else: > > > >> be practical in society and, the TM-Sidhis gives you a signpost of > > > >> whether or not you are fully enlightened, etc. > > > >> > > > >> As I said, Robin obviously didn't get the memo. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Had he done so, MMY might have said "don't worry" or he > > > >>>> might have said "go and be practical in society" as he > > > >>>> did with Curtis. > > > >>> > > > >>> I think that was Joe Kellett, not Curtis. > > > >> > > > >> THought it was Curtis. No matter. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>>> Either way... > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> There doesn't seem to be any way we can know what was > > > >>>>> going on in MMY's mind where Robin was concerned. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Of course there is. MMY made a very clear statement about > > > >>>> full success in any of the sidhis, such as yogic flying, > > > >>>> and full enlightenment. > > > >>> > > > >>> You're still assuming you understand that statement. > > > >> > > > >> I think that I do, at least on a certain level. > > > >> > > > >>> > > > >>>> It was up to Robin to make the connection, and apparently > > > >>>> he never did. > > > >>> > > > >>> Or he did, and knew it didn't mean what you think it > > > >>> meant. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Or he didn't and hasn't. > > > >> > > > >>> Like I say, best to ask him how he sees all this. You > > > >>> and I aren't in a position to say what's what. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I believe he has already addressed this in a post from some time ago: > > > >> he rejects MMY's position on this outright. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> L. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
